SuttaCentral
Please accept my condolences, I’m so sorry to hear that. Please do take whatever time you need!
This would be an interesting thing to do, but we’d have to adjust the source text as well, so it’s far from trivial. But it might be a future project worth considering.
Currently in Colombo, getting ready for a meeting at the National Museum in a couple of hours. It looks like everything is going ahead with the Cullavagga project, everyone is on board and will be at the meeting.
The markup structure of the Bhikkhunī-vibhaṅga is a little different than the Bhikkhu-vibhaṅga in the beginning. The full first division is
<div class="hgroup">
<p class="collection">Theravāda Collection on Monastic Law</p>
<p class="division">Nuns’ rules and their analysis</p>
<h1>Nuns’ Expulsion 5: the training rule on above the knees</h1>
</div>
I started entering at
<h1>Nuns’ Expulsion 5: the training rule on above the knees</h1>
</div>
resulting in malformed HTML. I am supposing the magic wand at @sujato will wave over this will take care of that issue. Is it good?
See Translate | Pali Theravada Vinaya | English | SuttaCentral Translation Server
I have completed pli-tv-bi-vb-pj5.po
https://pootle.suttacentral.net/en/pli-tv/translate/pli-tv-bi-vb/pli-tv-bi-vb-pj/pli-tv-bi-vb-pj5.po
Please check. I’m a little rusty…
So good to have you back on board!
No problems. Fun fact, with a couple of minor tweaks, it is possible to run HTML tidy over these files and get them validated as proper HTML. HTML just treats the PO stuff like plain text. So we can pick up little quirks like this easily.
It looks great, except in a couple of cases the HTML is missing an opening <:
Oh, thanks for noticing that. I was sloppy on my selecting for copy/paste.
I replaced
what is meant is that she remains as a nun.<span class="note"><i lang="pli">Saliṅge ṭhitā vuccati</i>. This is explained in the sub-commentary (<span class="ref">Vin-vn-ṭ.1989</span>) as: <i lang="pli">saliṅge tu ṭhitāyāti pabbajjāliṅgeyeva ṭhitāya</i>, “For one remaining in the characteristic means: for one remaining in the characteristic of being gone forth.”</span><span class="gloss"></span>
with
<span class="gloss">what is meant is that she remains as a nun.<span class="note"><i lang="pli">Saliṅge ṭhitā vuccati</i>. This is explained in the sub-commentary (<span class="ref">Vin-vn-ṭ.1989</span>) as: <i lang="pli">saliṅge tu ṭhitāyāti pabbajjāliṅgeyeva ṭhitāya</i>, “For one remaining in the characteristic means: for one remaining in the characteristic of being gone forth.”</span></span>
as it seemed like the text “what is meant is that she remains as a nun.” should be inside a gloss element. I wasn’t sure about the note - inside the gloss (as above) or would following the gloss element be better?
BTW, this is inside a nested gloss element in bi-pj6
https://pootle.suttacentral.net/en/pli-tv/translate/pli-tv-bi-vb/pli-tv-bi-vb-pj/pli-tv-bi-vb-pj6.po#filter=all&unit=794061&offset=36
I believe what I sent you is correct. Here it is:
<span class="gloss"><span class="term">Remains</span>: what is meant is that she remains as a nun.<span class="note"><i lang="pli">Saliṅge ṭhitā vuccati</i>. This is explained in the sub-commentary (<span class="ref">Vin-vn-ṭ.1989</span>) as: <i lang="pli">saliṅge tu ṭhitāyāti pabbajjāliṅgeyeva ṭhitāya</i>, “For one remaining in the characteristic means: for one remaining in the characteristic of being gone forth.”</span><span class="gloss"></span> <span class="term">Has died</span>: <span class="gloss">what is meant is that she has passed away.</span> <span class="term">Has been ejected</span>: <span class="gloss">she has either disrobed herself or been ejected by others.</span> <span class="term">Has converted</span>: <span class="gloss">what is meant is that she has joined the ascetics of another sect.</span></span>
The entire thing functions as one long gloss, with sub-glosses within it. It’s a nested gloss, as you say. The note needs to be kept within this because it relates to a specific sub-gloss, not the overall gloss.
You will notice that “what is meant is that she remains as a nun.” is actually inside the gloss element.
Thanks Tara for the question and Brahmali for the answer.
I would add to request that the process should be one of copy and paste only. Please don’t make any changes to the markup at all. If there are any mistakes, or what look like mistakes, make a note of them and we will return to it at a later date. I need to be confident that the text and HTML as included in the PO segments is identical with the source files as supplied by Ven Brahmali.
In fact, the first process I will undertake at the end of your work will be to extract the text once more and diff it against the original files to ensure that there has been no changes. Once this is done, we can commence the task of correcting and proofing.
OK, I’ve changed that back to the original. When you say “make a note of them”, should that be done here or somewhere in pootle?
Best to leave comments in Pootle, just mark it in some unique way such as “TARA: here is my note” so we can sort them later.
@greenTara, I should say I do appreciate your careful reading, since it is unthinkable that I will not have made any mistakes. If you are able to make a note of them, as Bhante Sujato suggests, that would great.
@sujato, I have just found a parallel to the Nagara Sutta (SN12.65) in the Mūlasavāstivāda Vinaya, the one that was recently released on read.84000.co. It does not seem to be included in your list of parallels. The sutta is found at 4.230-457 in the English translation. Is there another place I should note such parallels?
Well, the sutta-vinaya parallels are badly incomplete, even when it comes to the Pali Vinaya. The original set just covered the nikayas/agamas, and we have not extended it systematically. There is a Japanese scholar, Fumi Yao, who has been working on this problem, and we are waiting the outcome of her work, which (I believe) includes a detailed structure of the Mu-Vinaya, as well as parallels. I haven’t checked back in the last couple of years, so I am not sure where the project is at right now. Anyway, the point being that the sutta parallels in the Mu-Vi will number in the hundreds, so adding one at this point is probably a bit redundant …
Another question to Ajahn @Brahmali (and this is really rather a question than pointing out an error, because my Pali is far too basic to be able to judge):
Pc 68, segment 67
“Yāvatatiyañce samanubhāsiyamāno taṃ paṭinissajjeyya, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ, no ce paṭinissajjeyya, pācittiyan”ti.”
translated: "If he then gives it up, all is well. If not, he commits an offense entailing confession.’”
Can this be a similar case to what we had with some dukkatas, where even if it didn’t say “apatti dukkatassa” the translation was using the word “offense”—here with pacittiya? It doesn’t say “apatti pacittiyassa”, so maybe the English should be something like “it has to be confessed”?
Pc 68, segment 95
English: “And, monks, he should be pressed in this way. A competent and capable monk should inform the Order: ‘Please, Venerables, I ask the Order to listen…
I don’t quite understand the purpose of the quotation marks before "And, monks. It is in the middle of the Buddha’s talk, and I can’t see a new quotation starting here.
Is this an error, and they should be removed? Or did I miss something?
Again for Ajahn @Brahmali—thank you!
Pc 68, segment 132
asamanubhāsantassa, paṭinissajjantassa, ummattakassāti.
EN: if he has not been pressed; if he give it up; if he is insane; if he is the first offender.
Corrected to: if he has not been pressed; if he gives it up; if he is insane.
(The “first offender” is not in the Pali, so I took it out.)
Thanks @sabbamitta for bringing all this up. I’ll go through them one by one.
Pācittiya is different because it is offence by definition. Dukkata, by contrast, it a non-technical word that is used throughout the suttas to mean bad conduct. As such it is tricky to distinguish when it refers to an offence and when is merely refers to what is inappropriate. It seems quite likely to me that it initially dukkata always referred to inappropriate conduct that was not technically an offence, and only gradually did it become a separate class of offence, hardly distinguishable from the pācittiyas, thullaccayas, and the dubbhāsitas. This inability to distinguish the offences - in the sense that the penalty is exactly the same - is one of the fingerprints that may indicate that originally only one of these four was an offence. (In other words, why would the Buddha create a number of different classes of offences if there was no difference between them in penalty, confession, or other procedures.)
If you look at the use the word pācittiya in the Pali text, it is always used without āpatti within the rules, but usually with āpatti in the Vibhaṅga commentary. Clearly, it must mean offence in the actual rule, and so it is always appropriate to render it as an offence of pācittiya. Again, pācittiya is word that exclusively refers to offences.
As for segment 95, I am following the punctuation in the Pali, which I think is correct. The point here, I think, is that it is not clear that the Buddha is speaking before the quotation marker. If you look at the text it has a generic feel, with no bhikkhave or other markers that the Buddha is actually speaking. We know the Vibhaṅga has been expanded a long time after the Buddha, and we may be able to distinguish this expansion from the word of the Buddha by carefully distinguishing how the text is presented. At the point you are referring to, suddenly we have bhikkhave, which clearly indicates that the Buddha is speaking again, and so this may mark a more ancient part of the text. (Although as a stand-alone piece of evidence it is obviously not very strong.) So I think it is good to leave the quotation markers, as I believe it accurately reflects the Pali.
As for your comment re. segment 132: 
I am glad to get such things sorted!
Thank you for your explanations, Ajahn! Especially what you are saying about segment 95 is an interesting point.
Finished Bu Pc 61–70!
I am ready now to continue with some of the Bhikkhuni rules from tomorrow on. Whatever Ajahn @Brahmali would like to send me… 
Well done, Sabbamitta! I can now tell the translators into Portuguese that all the English for the Bhikkhu-vibhaṅga is available on Pootle. These things have ramifications down the line. There are many teams working in parallel here. So it’s great to get it all uploaded.
I will send you the bhikkhunī saṅghādisesa rules shortly.
Bi Ss 4
In the definitions, this part appears twice in the Pali:
“Samaggo nāma
saṃgho samānasaṃvāsako samānasīmāyaṃ ṭhito.”
In the English it is only once.
I leave the second Pali passage blank (no translation) and mark “needs work”.